Law of Property and Inheritance Problem Questions - Essay Example

? Law of Property and Inheritance Part One Individuals may have vested interest in the same property simultaneously.1 The law of property therefore determines the rightful owner of the property and help to solve conflicts between the parties. However in some cases there exist equal right of ownership and usage of the same property. The co-owners may use the property simultaneously but no should interfere with the right of use for the other co-owner.2 The law of property helps to determine the right of each individual in property where conflict of interest exists, and also helps to determine the extent to which the owner of the property can utilize that property without breaching the rights of others who may have interest in the same property. This is whereby more than one person have right of ownership of the same property regardless of the share of each person(s) in the property. However, each person has distinct rights of possession in the property from the other co-owners though they all have absolute right to the entire property. Under common tenancy, each of the co-owners has right to do what they wishes with their right of ownership to the property. Therefore, co-owners can pass their right to the possession of the property to their heirs if they so wish or can even sell their property any time they fill like. Under such situation, the third party who has inherited or has purchased the property from another person will acquire absolute right of co-ownership with the other existing co-owners. Under common tenancy, each co-owner has personal liability for payment of the property rates, maintenance fees and refurbishment cost. However, if one of the co-owners bears the entire refurbishment and maintenance charges, they have a right to claim for reimbursement from the other co-owners. Therefore, Basil is entitled to a refund of the amount he spent in refurbishing the roof, establishment of the kitchen and clearing gas and electricity bills from the co-owner sister, Amaryllis. In this case Amaryllis an estate known as Artichoke Park which contained a farm-house and numerous cottages. Amaryllis lived in that farmhouse with her brother Basil. At the time she was buying the estate at a value of ?1million, her brother Basil gave a contribution of ?100, 000 for the same. He also paid for the repair of the house and for installation of a new kitchen as well as for electricity and gas bills from his own earnings. However, there was no agreement to show the form of relationship that existed in the ownership of the estate either at present or in the future. According to their agreement, the estate was written in the name of Amaryllis.3 They have continued to live in the same house since then. In my view, by the virtue of their conduct and mutual agreement to live together the two co-owners had entered in a common tenancy. Under this form of ownership, there was no distinction as to what proportion of the property each of the two owns. Both Amaryllis and Basil have equal access to the property and can do anything they wish with the property. However, the parties should be careful with their deeds in order to avoid infringing the rights of each party.4 Therefore, each of the party may use the property according to their wishes, but should not interfere with the right of the other party. Under common tenancy, each of the co-owner of the property has a right to sell or to transfer the right to another person.5 Under such a situation, the third party to whom the property has been transferred to acquire absolute light similar to that which was held by the previous owner. In the light of this information, it can be argued that in the situation where Amaryllis invited her cousin Cecily to live in the estate with her, Amaryllis agreed to share her right in the property with Basil, but Cecily had no so such right as long as Amaryllis was in the estate.6 Therefore, Cecily could only enjoy limited rights as a share of what Amaryllis enjoyed and should in no way appear to enjoy equal right as a third co-owner. Basil does not have anything to worry about this, but in case he establishes that his right of possession of the property has been tampered with by the presence of Cecily, and then he can sue before the court to have his right reinstated. Cecily could only enjoy the share of property belonging to Amaryllis.7 Therefore, Amaryllis had such a right to invite her cousin Cecily to live in their estate without involving Basil in the issue. Amaryllis promised Cecil that she did not have to worry since even if anything happened to her any time she would ensure Cecily is always provided for. Due to the fact that Cecily surrendered her flat to follow the promise of Amaryllis, Cecily was therefore entitled to live in the estate and there is no way Amaryllis can later ask her to leave the estate.8 Also, since Amaryllis promised her cousin Cecily that she would have her taken care off any time irrespective of whether Amaryllis was alive or not, this is a bidding promise that Cecily had right to inherit a share of Amaryllis property in case of her death. Therefore, Basil cannot hinder Cecily from enjoying equal right to the property to the extent Amaryllis could enjoy.9 This implies that Cecily would become a co-owner Basil in the absence of Amaryllis. Under the law of property, if person finds property or goods belonging to another person, the right of both the original owners and the finder of that property depend on the owner discarded it intentionally, misplaced it unwillingly, kept it for safety but forget about it or whether it was hidden by unknown person for safe custody in a secret place. 10 In one case, builders who were installing kitchen in the farm-house at Artichoke Park found a tin stacked with 50 notes which were hidden in floorboards. In this case, the original owner of the estate was the rightful owner of the notes. Therefore, the kitchen builders have a responsibility to return the tin to the owner of the estate since they do not have legal ownership of the notes. However, since the owner has already died and Amaryllis knows the where about of her daughter, Erica, and then Amaryllis have a duty to give the money to the owner’s daughter who lives nearby.11 In a different case, Flora came in contact with a pottery vase containing a number of gold-coloured coins and a statue made of bronze. However, Flora never told anyone and decided to keep them for herself. Under the common law, the finder of property attached to the land or in a building should be presumed they belongs to the owner of the land hence the finder should return them to the landlord.12 However, in this case, Flora is a leaseholder and has been in the farm for a long time. In this case, she has the right to keep the found property since they cannot be attributed to any particular owner.13 Flora’s son Garry found gold watch on the public footpath and took it to goldsmith for valuation, but the goldsmith decided to keep it since he thought the watch was not for the class of such a boy. In this case, Garry had better right to the possession of the watch than goldsmith and therefore he could sue the goldsmith to recover his watch. This is because the watch could not be traced back to the original owner hence the new owner remains the finder who is Flora’s son. My decision for this case is similar to the case in Amory v. Delamirie, 93 Eng. Rep. 664 (K.B. 1722), where the boys who were cleaning chimney found a jewel and took I to goldsmith.14 The goldsmith refused with it but the cold issued a verdict that the boy had a right to the jewel as opposed to the goldsmith. In conclusion, the co-ownership of property is determined by the conditions in which it was acquired and the agreement between the parties involved. Under common tenancy, all parties have equal right to the use of the property irrespective of the share of contribution during purchase. Individual co-owner has right to sell or to mortgage his or her property without notifying the other party. However, there is no party who should use the property in such a way that it will cause interference to the right of use by the other co-owner. Part B According to “Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 19751975 CHAPTER 63” A will or testament is a affirmation of a person regarding how he o she would wish the property they leave behind to be managed and shared among the surviving heirs upon the death of property owners.15 Since will stipulates the desire of the owner regarding how the property is to be shared among the surviving dependents in the event of his or her death, the has been strict in implementing the will in order to avoid conflict among the survivors relatives of the deceased person. The court should therefore affirm that the will was actually publicized by the owner of the property and that the person was competent to make a testament.16 Sometimes the owner may wish to change his or her existing will before his or her death of which they should do so by writing a codicil. The will should have the signature of the owner, the date when the will was made and two witnesses who were present at the time of making the will. However, in most cases the witnesses may not be necessary where the owners makes the will and appends signature against it. The normal practice is to append signature at the end of the will. Finally, the will should state at least one of the beneficiaries of the deceased estate. In United Kingdom, soldiers and other in active service like captains of the ships are allowed to make serviceman’s will and can make will orally that can last for more than three months as long as they are in active service. Generally the oral will is supposed to be valid for a period not more than three months. In case the person making the will stays alive for more than three months, the law requires the maker of the oral will to renew it, or otherwise it will be invalid. When a person makes oral will after making a written and the court find a contradiction in the two wills, then the written will surpasses the oral will. In our case, Cheryl was cohabiting with John and the two have been together for the last one and half year and their relationship was revealed by a newspaper. Unfortunately John died intestate, which means he had not formally declared on how his wealth was to be distributed to his dependants. The newspaper also revealed that John had another wife whom he was married to for six year but he had no children. So, John having died without children, the court has to distribute his wealth among the dependants of John. Since Cheryl had lost her job at the time they were falling in love with John, it is apparent that she entirely relied on John for her livelihood. Since the of the will is to ensure the property of the deceased is shared among the beneficiaries to ensure they continue living a decent life like they used to live before, John’s property will be shared between his two wives who have been depending on him since their marriages. However, the court will have to consider the wealth that John had before marriage and what he may have amassed after marrying Cheryl.17 This will be the base the court will use to determine the proportion of dividing the wealth between Cheryl and the other wife. The court will also have to consider any other John’s dependant like parents or siblings who must also get a share of his property to ensure they continue living normal life as they used to live before the death of John. Before Ashley’s death, he had made a will in which he entrusted 100000 to Roy on behalf of Leighton. The letter that Ashley left in the locker was the codicil that attests to his intention and therefore, Roy should give that money to Leighton. Irrespective of whether the original will stated that the amount was meant for Roy, what codicil states is what Roy is supposed to do.18 On the other hand, Joe and Hilda had made a will in which they entrusted all their property to their two children. However, after the death of Joe, Hilda got married to Roy and made another will in which she entrusted all her property to him. In this regard, since the law states that one person cannot change the will made by two people in whom the new will contradict the original will, the will made by Hilda to Roy is invalid. If a woman inherits her husband’s property after his death, but decides to remarry, there is no way she can move with that property to another husband.19 Therefore, Roy cannot inherit such property since the will made between Hilda and her former husband indicated that the property was to be inherited by their two children. However, if the court affirms that Hilda had amassed some more property since the time she got married to Roy, then Roy is entitled to acquire that portion of the property they have worked for while living together as husband and wife.20 In the will made by Wayne, Wayne indicated that ?50,000 were supposed to go to Phil. However, the formal way of making is a will is to have the owner and two witnesses to attest the details of the will. The law requires that neither of the two witnesses should be having personal interest in the will. In this case, Phil and the waitress were the witnesses to the Ashley and Wayne’s will.21 The court will have to decide on the fate of the Phil’s inheritance since the only valid witness to the Wayne’s will was the waitress. I believe the court will have to consider other factors before issuing a verdict as to whether Phil should take the money or not. For example, the other benefits that Phil may have been drawing from Wayne before his death, their relationship and factors that may have led Wayne to name Phil as his beneficiary. In the case of Leon, the will made by Ashley before his death sated that he was supposed to get a share of ?50,000 from his wealth. The will was written and signed before two witnesses who were Phil and waitress. According to the formal requirement of making a will, the writer of the will or the owner of the property must attest of his or her desires regarding how his wealth is to be shared among his dependants and there should be two witnesses to the signing of the will.22 However, the witnesses should not have a vested interest in the will whatsoever. In this case, Ashley made his will before waitress and Phil. This makes this will valid and therefore, Leo is entitled to a share of ?50,000 from Ashley’s property as stated in his will.23 According to the original will made by Ashley, he had not named Leighton anywhere as his beneficiary. However, the aim of the aim is to ensure that the properties of the owner are shared fairly according to the will of the owner after his death.24 It also ensures that all those who were relying on him do not suffer as a result of his death. The law therefore allows the owner of the property to expresses himself or herself as clear as possible in order to avoid contradiction or conflicts of interest after the death of the owner when it comes to sharing the property they leave behind. The law also allows the owner to change his wishes any time during his lifetime as long as he or she has legal capacity to make the will.25 Therefore, regarding the rights of Leighton in regard to the share of Ashley’s property, it is clear that Ashley had made a codicil in a letter he left to the locker. The codicil has capacity to alter the content of the original will.26 Therefore, if the letter was truly signed by Ashley, then Leighton will be the rightful owner of the amount left by Ashley to Roy. If this is the case then Roy will not take anything but all the amount will be taken by Leighton. In conclusion, a will a personal declaration of how the property will be shared among the surviving beneficiary after the owner has died. The will may either be written or just spoken words of mouth, but should be clear and precise. This will help to minimize conflicts among the beneficiaries since the property is shared according to the desires of the owner. Although written can last for a long period of time, oral will is only valid for three months after which the owner will be required to renew if the death has not occurred. However, military solders can make oral will during their active service and this can last for as long as they in service. The owner of the property can alter the content of the will by making a codicil, but should not contravene the former intention of the will. Finally, there should be at least two witnesses to the will who have no personal interest to the will. Bibliography Amory v. Delamirie, 93 Eng. Rep. 664 (K.B. 1722). Booth, Alan & Crouter, Ann, C, Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation on Families, Children, and Social Policy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2002, 123-297 Birks, Peter, G, New Perspectives in the Roman law of Property: Essays for Barry Nicholas; Oxford University, Oxford, England; 1989, 76-132. Brashier, Ralph, C. Inheritance Law and the Evolving Family: Temple University Press, Philadelphia; 2004, 123-189 Friedman, Lawrence, M, Dead Hands: A Social History of Wills, Trusts, and Inheritance Law; Stanford Law Books, Stanford, CA; 2009, 12-123 Garnett, George, Conquered England: Kingship, Succession, and Tenure, 1066-1166, Oxford University Press, New York; 2007, 345-413 Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 19751975 CHAPTER 63 Available at, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63 James, Deaton, B, Intestate Succession and Heir Property: Implications for Future Research on the Persistence of Poverty in Central Appalachia: Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 41(4); 2007, 54-98 Jason, Legg, J, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Section 541: The Mind-Buster Busted: Albany Law Review, Vol. 59(4) Lewin, Linda, Surprise Heirs: Illegitimacy, Patrimonial Rights, and Legal Nationalism in Luso- Brazilian Inheritance, 1750-1821 - Vol. 1, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 2003, 46-134 MacQueen, Hector, L. Common Law and Feudal Society in Medieval Scotland: Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh; 1993, 28-123 Malloy, Robin, P, Law and Market Economy: Reinterpreting the Values of Law and Economics; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England; 2000, 31-76 Miceli Thomas, J. Economics of the Law: Torts, Contracts, Property, Litigation: Oxford University Press, New York; 1997, 42-157 Michael, Crim, D, Succession Plans! Be Prepared for the Unexpected: Defense Counsel Journal, Vol. 75(3); 2008, 43-86 Oakley A. J. Trends in Contemporary Trust: Law Oxford University, New York; 1996, 123-176 Spring, Eileen, Law, Land & Family: Aristocratic Inheritance in England, 1300 to 1800: University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill; 1993, 124-178 Penner, J, E, The Idea of Property in Law: Oxford University, Oxford; 1997, 65-121 Steve, Cocheo, Let It Go, Joe": Management Succession Is Only a Plan, until It Actually Happens: ABA Banking Journal, Vol. 104(2); 2012, 23-76 Schmidgen, Wolfram, Eighteenth-Century Fiction and the Law of Property: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England; 2002, 53-142 Stein, Peter, Roman law in European History: Cambridge University Press Cambridge, England; 1999, 32-123 Sarah, Waldeck, E, Rethinking the Intersection of Inheritance and the Law of Tenancy in Common: Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 87(2): 2011, 76-123 Vaughan, W, E, Landlords and Tenants in Mid-Victorian Ireland: Clarendon Press, Oxford; 1994, 134-197 Read More